Facultad para Reformar la Constitución

In response to my first research question, there was overwhelming evidence to suggest that increasing student participation in the classroom should be a focus in the school, allowing students to voice their opinions, think more deeply about their learning and discuss their learning with their peers. By increasing students’ participation in all aspects of schooling, a more inclusive model of schooling can be achieved delivering excellence for everyone. In addition, research evidence shows that students learn and retain more, the more they are allowed to talk through their learning. To allow this to happen, however, some of the key practices of both the teachers and leadership in the school need to change.

In considering the current teaching and learning practice, there is an over-reliance on the textbook to structure the lesson and little evidence to suggest teachers are supplementing the content with any other alternative, relevant material or allowing students to debate, discuss or question its content. The students freely articulated their frustrations on not being allowed a sufficient voice and students will not learn how to do this as future adults in society, unless teachers enable them to develop these skills within the classroom.

Teachers need to learn to adapt how they are implementing the textbook curriculum, particularly as my research evidences it is confining the teaching and learning approaches used, stifling creative opportunities for learning. ‘Pressures of assessment’ and ‘too much curriculum content’ should not be reasons for sticking rigidly to a

145

textbook. All of the strategies demonstrated could be used to support the delivery of a textbook-led curriculum and in hindsight modelling the strategies directly using some of the textbook material would have been beneficial. Further pedagogical professional development is therefore required to address the obvious issue of how to maximise student participation, whilst still delivering the mass of curriculum content within the textbooks.

In establishing a need to increase student participation, delivering training in a range of participation strategies, was not in itself enough to bring about a change in practice and lessons for future teacher development work of this kind can be learnt. Teachers must seek to increase opportunities for ‘trusted dialogue’ with students to help raise aspiration and achievement (Blandford and Hulme, 2015; p.53), and this has to begin with the classroom. The teachers who were successful in adapting their teaching and learning practice, resulting in an increased student voice in the classroom, were those who had experienced a one-to-one coaching relationship with myself. Virtual communication also had an important part to play in developing capacity. Although the use of virtual coaching methods had proved unsuccessful in my previous Rwandan research project, when used once a face-to-face relationship has been established, virtual methods can be successful in sustaining these relationships, and my work in Nepal has evidenced this.

Nepal is recognised as a relatively hierarchical society, which places value on its leadership coming from top authority figures.In these societies, it can be assumed that ‘subordinates are expecting to be told what to’ and the ‘ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat’ (Hofstede, 2018). The problem with this model is subordinates in turn can say they are doing something, but not necessarily be doing it, as was evidenced within my research. This culture of obedience, often associated with a collectivist society, consists of ‘closely linked individuals who see themselves as parts of one or more collectives… willing to give priorities to the goals of these collectives over their personal

146

goals’ (Triandis, 2018; p.2). With obedient responses within my research at times being misleading, recommendations for future training projects, include ensuring ongoing external support is provided, regardless of how confidently those involved commit to the training. This is particularly important when the leadership has not fully ‘bought-in’ to the focus for the training.

My second research question sought to establish whether coaching could support leadership in sustaining the professional development programme. Sustaining improvements in any organisation can be particularly challenging and this has been evidenced within my own practice. MacBeath and Mortimore evidence in their research how often the initial ‘excitement’ which is associated with the decision to change, ‘wears off as teachers are faced with other demands, as well as inevitable difficulties presented by both the innovation and the school’s internal capacity’ (2001; p.206). In referencing Hofstede’s scale again, in ‘uncertainty avoidance’, Nepal scored lowly, suggesting its people are fairly relaxed, not averse to taking risks and are willing to try something new or different. This positive approach to change was evident within my research and I was initially confident that this would lead to success in implementing the strategies. In evaluating my research data however, it was evident that the training alone had not been sufficient to bring about a change in practice and it was the more personal coaching relationship with myself as a coach that had proved most instrumental in facilitating this change. I would therefore recommend that this approach be included in any future teacher development provision by external agencies. With training provided at the beginning of a visit, rather than the end, time could then be used for the duration of any visit to provide one-to-one teacher modelling and coaching.

In Rosinki’s definition of a ‘global coaching culture’, he believes that as ‘human potential is vast and multi-faceted. A key value is to leverage the difference, to achieve unity in diversity’ (2011; p.51). In other words, global coaches should use cultural difference as an opportunity to be maximised rather than an adversity to be overcome.

147

One such cultural difference was in their positioning of me almost immediately as an ‘educational guru’, with whatever I said ‘obediently’ accepted as practice to be implemented. This positioning me so highly is supported by Hofstede’s power distance dimension, in which Nepal scores highly in being recognised as a hierarchical society. As a visiting ‘White British Headteacher’, I was immediately placed at (or near) the top of the hierarchical order, creating an additional challenge for me to ‘come down’ from this elevated position to work alongside the teachers as equals, an important starting point for coaching.

Successful schools value an inclusive model of school leadership (NCTL, 2010; p.2) which invests and fully commits to professional development. It is this investment in ongoing professional development which Blandford highlights as contributing to the creation of a learning environment (2000; p.26). The school’s leadership had already shown a commitment to professional development in implementing Montessori teaching and learning approaches in the pre- and lower primary phases, as well as in requesting my delivery of pedagogical training to all staff. My idea for using a coaching programme to support the pedagogical training was to enable the leaders in school to fulfil the role I had provided during the visits, of working more closely with the teachers to discuss implementation of the strategies and ensure understanding, as well as to monitor and evaluate their effectiveness. Whilst the coaching programme had not been implemented in its entirety, a more informal approach of using ‘learning conversations’ had proved partly successful in empowering the teaching staff to self-evaluate and implement changes in their teaching practice; in particular, in increasing opportunities for students to participate and engage with their learning. Although not all staff were engaged in these learning conversations, this practice of self-reflection, which was beginning to support improvements in teaching and learning practice, was a start in establishing the school as a learning organisation.

148

Through the professional development process, those teachers who chose to implement the strategies were participating in their own educational action research in an attempt to improve practice ’by means of personal actions and reflections upon the effects of those actions’ (Burgess, 1985: p.131). This practice could potentially be shared with those staff in the school not yet confident in implementing the student participation strategies and possibly extended to teachers from other schools. Frustrations had been voiced by teachers in the secondary phase at not having access to subject knowledge collaboration with other schools, an important part of professional development within my own practice. I am confident that some staff within the school are now more equipped to share their teaching and learning practice with other schools.

Within Hope Academy, the leadership team have much to learn in leading school improvement and when I delivered the coaching training during my second visit to the school, I had not realised the extent of this need. Whilst there had been a commitment to the value of professional development in achieving excellence by the school’s leadership including members of the School Management Committee (SMC), there were no visible strategic development planning processes in place to drive forward school improvement. Coaching as a model for supporting staff development had proved useful in my own practice as it allows for a goal-focused process of ongoing support, training and guidance. If the leadership team had chosen to implement this practice, I feel strongly that this would have supported all staff in either implementing the strategies or identifying their own ways to increasing student voice in the classroom. Although leaders had identified ‘lack of time’, ‘staff leaving’ and ‘problems with infrastructure’ as reasons for not implementing the coaching process, my findings suggest, that a fundamental issue was the fragmentation of the leadership team. Whilst consisting of individual leaders with many skills and a passion for education, they were not operating as a cohesive team. Consequently, they were not able to agree a ‘shared

149

purpose’ nor a mutual commitment to sustaining the professional development programme. This shared purpose must also come from the school’s Management Committee (SMC), who have the responsibility for ‘preparing plans for their schools, bringing local education stakeholders together for planning and monitoring purposes’ (MoE, 2016; p.9).

With the SMC having an important role in school improvement planning, being able to formalise a plan which identifies key priorities, associated actions, timescales, key responsibilities, outcomes and measure of impact is key. Accompanying the school improvement plan, there should also be evidence of monitoring systems to ensure practice is embedded. Without any visible evidence of these systems, the SMC also has much to learn in understanding its leadership roles and responsibilities. Knowing whether other local School Management Committees have developed the skills in school improvement planning would be useful either in seeking support for the school to implement its own, or to work together collaboratively to support improvements in practice.

Just like in the UK, inviting in outside training providers and hoping this will bring about improvements on its own, will not always prove successful. Leadership must fulfil their role in ensuring initiatives are embedded and staff development is continued once the training providers have left. Despite leaving sufficient resources, recorded lessons of the strategies being used, as well as strategy prompt cards to display in every classroom, no one took on the overall responsibility for leading the initiative. For this reason, nominating a professional development lead can often prove useful.

Implementing initiatives in schools with autocratic leadership, however, can only be successful with the full support of the ‘autocratic leader’, in this case the Academic Director. In Hope Academy, the original Headteacher with a passion for excellence, left the school prior to the implementation of my work and I never felt the new Academic

150

Director had the same passion and ownership of the proposed professional development foci. Strong principals ‘must promote quality instruction, supervise and evaluate teaching and learning, and allocate and protect instructional time’ (Evans and Teddlie, 1995; p.2). Whilst not involved from the outset, it was his role to ensure that staff were supported in implementing the strategies to increase student participation. This is of particular importance in a hierarchical culture which relies heavily on its autocratic leader to lead by example. I can only conclude, that his reluctance to drive forward this initiative came from his lack of belief in it. Given his authoritarian approach to managing staff and his military approach to discipline, these may be the reasons why he was not particularly supportive of an initiative which encouraged a more democratic voice in the classroom. Absence of a student council was further evidence to suggest that increasing student voice in the school was not considered by him to be a school priority.

When considering the capacity of the school’s stakeholders to implement and sustain the professional development programmes, despite having a built-for-purpose school with small class sizes and mostly qualified teachers, the school is still affected by limited resources; internet and the installation of a computer suite is quite recent. Classrooms are small and ill-equipped, and their layout dictates an instructional approach to teaching. This was evidenced by one of the leaders (LA) who said, ‘our classrooms are not set up for the strategies’. Whilst this in itself is a misconception, as classroom layouts do not detract from giving students time to discuss their learning, without further support and training, teachers may continue to believe this and be reluctant to move away from this favoured instructional approach.

Whilst the school’s teaching and learning practice is allowing students to attain their end of school academic qualifications, educational quality and excellence is more than the achievement of academic outcomes. The initial approaches were not giving the students enough time to think deeper, think critically and challenge ideas presented to

151

them. If students are not allowed to do this in the safe haven of the classroom, how will they ever develop the skills to become adults of the future who can challenge the adversities associated with a caste system, gender inequality and poverty levels in their country? Inclusion in the education system must ‘not only support every pupil’s basic human right to education, but also ensure that each pupil feels that education is accessible and relevant to them’ (Armstrong and Moore, 2004; p.77). This can only be achieved if students are recognised and valued as individuals, which becomes meaningful once given a voice. Some teachers in the school are now actively allowing this to happen.

Presently, continuous professional development for teachers in Nepal is limited, unlike in the UK where it is explicitly referenced as an ongoing priority in the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2013). With little evidence of in-service training in a private school, with access to slightly higher levels of funding, I would question how the state schools are expected to implement continuous professional development with more limited funding. Based upon my research however, I would conclude that the lack of pedagogical training in Hope Academy was not necessarily due to a shortage of funding, given the delivery of the external Montessori training. I would suggest the lack of clarity in identifying school improvement priorities exercised by the school’s leadership is a more fundamental reason for why professional development needs were not being identified. I am confident that moving forward, school improvement development will greatly assist the school’s leadership in identifying the relevant professional development needs.

Ultimately, when considering the three principles of Tikly and Barrett’s social justice framework, this school is now working successfully towards several aspects of Inclusion. In its simplest interpretation, re-stating the EfA goal of a complete basic education accessible to all, the school is managing to effectively distribute resources so as to enhance the capabilities of its students (2013; p.19). The leadership team has

152

now taken on the advice to communicate their priorities through a shared school improvement plan and seek to be a more ‘inclusive leadership’ by consulting with all stakeholders in the process. Further learning is now required in to how to adapt classroom environments to facilitate the individual needs of the learners.

When considering the relevance strand of this framework, which is concerned with learning outcomes, the school is performing well academically but school excellence encompasses more than this, requiring its students to become ‘good citizens’ (Taylor and Ryan, 2005; p.28). From a capabilities perspective, Tikly and Barrett endorse the need for a socio-economically education, which ‘enhances the capabilities of learners to lead sustainable livelihoods in their diverse local environments and to benefit a globalising world’ (2013; p.19). Schools must ensure its students, as young adults and ‘good citizens’, are motivated to achieve more than simply returning to their local communities and engaging in roles similar to their parents and grandparents before them. Schools must play their part in encouraging students to continue in education, which in turn will contribute to Nepal’s ability to achieve the sustainable development goals and perform equally on a global scale.

In defining relevance, Tikly and Barrett also reference Nussbaum, who proposes that ‘a good quality education should aim to enable critical thinking, world citizenship and imaginative understanding’ (2006a; p.20). It is for these reasons that teaching and learning approaches in the classrooms must allow students to practise and develop these skills, and this will only be achieved if students are given opportunities to actively participate in their learning. With several teachers in the school now adapting their practice to increase student participation in learning, it is now essential that this practice is shared and the successful use of learning conversations used to support the process.

153

Finally, the participation strand of their framework relates to Nancy Fraser’s (2008) social justice dimension of representation, ‘encompasses rights-based concerns for learner voice and the participation of learners and other stakeholders in educational decision-making’ (UNICEF 2009, cited in Tikly and Barrett, 2013; p.20). This strand once again emphasises the importance of the student voice and whether students themselves are given an adequate say in educational decision-making. Developing teaching and learning practice to increase student participation and setting up a student council, would ensure the school is fulfilling its role in addressing social justice in education through active participation.

Ultimately, a vital indicator of a school’s capacity for improvement is its increased learning ability, whereby people teach and learn together. In moving towards a learning organisation, ‘the culture of the school becomes the knowledge carrier, spanning generations of staff’, in turn ensuring its sustainability (MacBeath and Mortimore, 2001; p.18). Having several staff in school now supportive of the student participation strategies, a new leadership team which advocates the need for change and